What’s The Point?
My client Tanya (not her real name) arrived for our session with a common challenge – she needed to prepare for a difficult conversation. In her case it was with two of her peers who are studio leaders in other cities; the issue concerned how they worked together when developing new business with an existing client.
I began by asking Tanya what her objectives were for the conversation. What would she like to accomplish by the end of the 30-minute Zoom call?
Her response: “I’d like us to agree that we’ll act more like collaborators instead of competitors when pursuing new work. I’d like them to be more honest in their approach when presenting our firm’s credentials.”
Those are wonderful outcomes, but they are overly ambitious objectives.
Conflating the two is one of the reasons that we label conversations “difficult” in the first place. Our expectations are far too high, especially if we think we can straighten everything out in a single (sigh) 30-minute meeting.
Instead, Tanya’s objective needed to be simpler and more attainable: to explore what I call “the three realities” of a conflict which are “her reality” (her view of the issue), “their reality” (her colleagues’ view of the issue) and their “shared reality” (where those perspectives overlap – or not).
A viable solution will emerge only from a shared reality. Achieving that level of understanding is a far more reasonable goal for an initial conversation, creating a solid foundation for the follow-on discussions that would likely be necessary.
Here’s how I recommended she structure the initial 30-minutes:
Connect. Thank everyone for being there, and acknowledge that this is an important situation to address for the client, the firm, and their working relationships. Then propose the following agenda and request agreement.
Share. Each person gets one or two minutes to share their view while the others listen silently (no interruptions!) and write down questions. Let everyone have their turn before moving on to the next step.
Clarify. Open forum time for everyone to ask and address clarifying questions based on what was shared.
Decide. Determine where you are now and what needs to happen next based on what was learned from each other.
By the end of our session, Tanya saw that her real objective wasn’t to secure agreement or behavior change in that first meeting. It was to build shared understanding so the trio could eventually identify ways to improve the situation.
In mediation, we often say that understanding is the true measure of success because it’s the only reliable on-ramp to resolution – even if resolution comes later. Resolution without understanding is rarely sustainable.
So the next time you’re preparing to have a difficult conversation, ask yourself “what’s the point?” Is your objective to understand everyone’s reality, or is it to push for your desired outcome?